The ideological source of WMS’s error lies in their metaphysical world view, in their mechanical materialism and vulgar evolutionism. Mechanical materialism is the theory promoted by the modern revisionists on the development of the revolutionary process in society. It one-sidedly emphasizes the development of material economic factors in the development of society. This is to deny the very essence of materialist dialectics.
Up to a certain period the development of the productive forces and the changes in the realm of the relations of production proceed spontaneously, independently of the will of men. But that is so only up to a certain moment, until the new and developing productive forces have reached a proper state of maturity. After the new productive forces have matured, the existing relations of production and their upholder– the ruling classes–become that “insuperable” obstacle which can only be removed by the conscious action of the new classes, by the forcible acts of these classes, by revolution. Here there stands out in bold relief the tremendous role of new social ideas, of new political institutions, of a new political power, whose mission it is to abolish by force the old relations of production.(Stalin, History of CPSU, page 130)
Mechanical materialism denies the conscious action of men, the revolutionary will of the working class which directs, organizes and mobilizes the masses in the revolutionary overthrow of the old system. Rather it preaches that in the era of imperialism, further development of the productive forces through betterment of the material life of the working class under capitalism, through increase in wages, and reforms in working conditions is an end in itself.
WMS falls into mechanical materialism by upholding that the struggle of the working class for immediate economic demands, for day to day material benefits is the central focus of the revolutionary struggle. This is to call for a simple increase in the material benefits of the working class. We can only conclude that they put their metaphysical faith in an evolutionary process of change, rather than a revolutionary overthrow of the existing relations of production through the consolidation of the political power of the working class.
They negate the fundamental principles that l) the capitalist relations of production in the era of imperialism are reactionary fetters upon the further development of the productive forces 2) that the class struggle in society is many-sided, many-faceted and unfolds in the realm of the superstructure between proletarian and bourgeois ideology, over concrete political issues and political power, and that the class struggle also encompasses the revolutionary movements of the oppressed nationalities for liberation 3) that the development of the economic basis of capitalism and development of the superstructure which arises from it must be viewed in their dialectical relationship, and 4) that the consolidation of the political power of the working class requires the advancement of Marxist-Leninist theory, the creation of subjective factors in the revolution and the creation of an organized advanced detachment of the working class to lead the proletarian revolutionary movement.
We see, then, that WMS and the RU have fallen deep into a revisionist theory of social revolution. It is opportunist because it raises the banner of “materialism” (recognizing the fundamental contradictions in capitalist society between the social character of production and the private ownership of the means of production, between the working class and the bourgeoisie) in a completely anti-Marxist, mechanical way.
What are the political consequences of the mechanical materialist and vulgar evolutionary theory? We have seen in the previous sections the historical and concrete manifestations of their tailism, opportunism, and backwardness. Here we will continue to examine their written positions in order to identify more clearly the ideological source of their errors.[1]
We discussed above the characteristics of mechanical materialism, of which a central aspect is the denial of bringing political consciousness to the mass movement. This results in trailing after the evolutionary development of events. In their “Reactionary Line” WMS states:
(The Bay Area May Day slogan) ’Build Working Class Unity!’ puts forth that the way to fight imperialism and national oppression which stems from imperialism is to build working class unity. (page 3, emphasis in original)
And class unity through out their essay means class unity over economic issues not political consciousness. According to their view, there is no need for political consciousness and revolutionary leadership, for economic unity is “the way” to fight imperialism and national oppression.
Later on in their paper they give an example of their “class unity”:
Historically, most isolated struggles of minority workers were defeated by the capitalists because there was no support from other workers. In 1867 when Chinese railroad workers went on strike for the 8-hour day and better working conditions, they lost the fight because they were not able to get support from other workers.
Yet in the 1930’s, when Chinese, Mexican, Pilipino, Japanese and white Alaskan cannery workers united together and fought for unionization, they successfully threw out the exploitative contract system, established a union hiring hall, upgraded their oppressive working conditions, and formed one of the strongest multi-national unions in the U.S. (WMS, “Reactionary Line”, page 9)
The main difference between the mid-19th century and the mid-1930’s was the presence of a Marxist-Leninist party for the working class. The main reason why the 1930’s efforts were successful was because the Communist Party played a major role in the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) organizing drives.
Furthermore, this low-level of working class unity (trade union unity) is only one part of the working class movement, but WMS raises it as a leading example of what kind of “unity” they are promoting for revolution. After using the above example they charge that IWK tries to deny “the historical and present necessity” of multi-national unity in building for revolution. It is not this trade union unity that we are “denying” (as if we could even prevent spontaneous trade union consciousness from developing) but we are denying that it is this “unity”, this trade union consciousness, which is the consciousness necessary for revolution. The revolution needs the consciousness of revolution and not the trade unionist concept of working class unity promoted by WMS.
Secondly, from WMS’s opportunism on the question of the creation of political consciousness expect other general errors of an economist and vulgar materialist nature. An Albanian communist points out:
The preaching of spontaneity, as the ideology of opportunism in the labour movement, is spearheaded in the first place, against the necessity of the Marxist-Leninist theory and party. The modern revisionists are spreading the illusion that in capitalism especially in the developed industrial countries, socialist consciousness springs from the spontaneous movement itself, that the push towards socialism comes spontaneously from the development of the productive forces and from the change of the ratio of forces in the world to the detriment of imperialism, that in these conditions all sorts of parties and organizations,... can become the bearers of the ideals of socialism and the leaders of the socialist transformation of society. (Foto Cami, “Objective and Subjective Factors in Revolution,” p 2l)
It is precisely this error of worshipping the spontaneous development of events, the bowing down to the march of events of the mass movement that WMS is guilty of. They say such things as:
IWK claims that there is a ’definite material basis’ for the divisions in the class. We put forth that there is a definite material basis for both unity and disunity’ in the class. However, because of the present crisis of imperialism, the material basis for unity in the class is rising whereas the material basis for disunity is declining. Because of the present crisis of imperialism, working people are finding that they do have more in common than in difference...
Workers, who we believe IWK says are ’brought off’[2], are fighting back against the economic crisis with multi-national unity. Carpenters, construction workers, auto workers are all uniting across racial lines and waging industry wide strikes. Citing these examples, does not mean that white chauvinism and privilege or national oppression have disappeared. Rather, the examples show that multi-national working class unity and not disunity is the rising trend. As revolutionaries, we have to build on the positive aspects which are developing among the working class in order to unite against imperialism. What we have to struggle against is capitalist ideology such as narrow nationalism and white chauvinism, which feed on the backward ideas of the masses –creating confusion and division rather than unity. (WMS, “Reactionary Line”, page 6)
The material basis for the unity of the working class lies in the fundamental contradiction in capitalist society, the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the working class. The material basis for disunity lies in the contradiction within the working class between the labour aristocracy and the broad masses of the working class. These contradictions will be there as long as capitalism exists. A low level of class unity does spontaneously develop out of the economic struggle (the struggle of better wages, working conditions, etc.) and at times it will appear to be quite militant, especially in times of economic crisis such as today. For this reason it is all the more important not to confuse this low level of class unity with what Marxist-Leninists mean by real class unity; that is the class conscious unity of all workers fighting against all exploitation and oppression and for a socialist society. The multi-national unity WMS speaks of is again only trade union unity. The real multi-national unity we speak of is the conscious political unity of the revolutionary masses.
Capitalism creates all the material premises and the social force capable of carrying out the proletarian revolution, but without the role of the conscious factor there can be no radical transformation. ’Capitalism itself’, Lenin pointed out, ’creates its own grave digger, itself creates the elements of a new system, yet at the same time, without a ’leap’ these individual elements change nothing in the general state of affairs and do not affect the rule of capital.’ (Foto Cami, “Objective and Subjective Factors in Revolution,” p 20)
Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries must never belittle the fight for immediate demands for reforms. And all the examples WMS gives are nothing but examples of spontaneous developments under capitalism that we should expect, movements with which we should integrate with and lead. But not for one moment should we confuse the reform struggles for the revolutionary movement itself, for how the leap to socialist consciousness will be made. Revolutionary consciousness can only be brought to the working class by Marxist-Leninists who through the course of the day to day struggles, through fighting for partial demands, through propaganda and agitation and other means strive to bring political issues to the fore: such as the necessity of the working class in the U.S. to support the national liberation struggles around the world and the national struggles here at home against national oppression; that the working class and oppressed peoples will continue to suffer so long as the capitalist system remains; that socialism and communism are inevitable but that the working class bears the heavy historic task of leading this struggle; that the vanguard of the class must form itself into an organization of professional revolutionaries who base themselves on the most advance theory, etc.
And so WMS’s mechanical and limited conception of “building the mass movement”, “building multi-national class unity”, “building on the positive aspects which are developing among the working class in order to unite against imperialism” mean tailing after the movement for economic demands, and “unity” which spontaneously arise. It is only prolonging multi-national disunity because it confuses economic, trade union unity with political unity and not recognize the need to raise political issues.
Thus our criticism of WMS is not that they are not “far enough to the left” or that they omit some important political points. If these were the only criticisms we had they would be minor and we would have no cause to publish this article – we might very well be able to discuss politics with them and work out some mutual understanding. But unfortunately these are not our criticisms because WMS’s deviation is their fundamental distortion of Marxism-Leninism, because of their actual fostering of illusions as to the basic nature of imperialism and the revolutionary process, because they have the pretensions of providing a correct approach to revolution.
[1] They have written relatively little material, so we have limited resources to draw from.
[2] Something we have never said or believed.